The Trouble with Roe

National Review Online ^ | 11/10/2004 | Andrew C. McCarthy

[Syco]

This is the primary reason that Specter needs to be passed over for the chairmanship. It goes beyond simple abortion. It's about how the Republic is to be governed. By the people or through the courts!

[Tax-chick]

later

[farmfriend]

PErsonal list.

[E.G.C.]

BTTT!!!!!!

[blanknoone]

This is a great expose of how I can be of the opinion that Abortion (with both parent's consent) should be legal...but I think it is imperative to overturn RvW.

[Cicero]

Permit me to say that this is a partly good article. But a) it is too long, and bogs down in its latter half, so most people will throw up their hands and stop reading. And b) it contains at it's core a faulty assumption, that you have to choose between judicial tyranny and contempt for life as the basic principle at issue.

In his image of abortion as a tree that is larger than the whole forest, the writer seems to understand that that issue of priorities is a red herring. Judicial tyranny and the right of every created human being to life are BOTH bedrock principles in our constitutional system. The right to life is the most basic right of all. And freedom is one of the most basic rights as well.

In Roe v. Wade SCOTUS trampled on both these rights. The "inalienable" right of every citizen to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness--of which the right to life is clearly most basic; and the right of citizens to choose freely without the imposition of tyrannical decisions from above. It is a false distinction to imply that you have to choose one of these basic principles above the other. Nothing could be more basic than either life or freedom.

[Syco]

I agree with you on the first count. It is too long. I realized that when I started re-reading it after I had posted the thread. I should have just posted an excerpt. Sorry. (The guy's also way too wordy. Someone needs to tell him that the simplest writing is usually the best.)

On the second count, I'm not sure that I agree. I believe that he's arguing that we DON'T need to choose between judicial tyranny and contempt for life. He's arguing that the real issue isn't abortion, but the SCOTUS's contempt for the Constitution. The fact that abortion is at the center of this only magnifies the tragedy of the issue, but if the courts would uphold the law of a Democratic Republic then we would never have fallen into the mess of abortion to begin with. If you fix the Judicial tyranny problem you also will largely fix the abortion mess. Or am I missing something?

[mike182d]

This is a great expose of how I can be of the opinion that Abortion (with both parent's consent) should be legal...but I think it is imperative to overturn RvW.

I can't say that I agree entirely with the article. There really are two America's and it has nothing to do with the class warfare Demonrats shove down our throats. The essence of America is freedom, and thus it is two different ideas of freedom that American's differ on.

One idea of freedom is the ability to do whatever one wants, the other is the ability to do what is right.

Clearly our founding fathers did not arbitrarily create a democracy with the people left to do whatever they please. Our founding fathers sought a greater good, a good that can only be attained by free assent to that good and this is the role of the Constitution. It is meant to create fertile ground for its citizens to attain the Good while at the same time not telling us how we as individuals are to attain that Good. This is why abortion should be legal. This is not about women having the freedom to do whatever they want, it is about the Constitution defending the freedom to do what is right and in NO circumstances can a free nation remain free when we allow the slaughter of our future generations.

[TChris]

Very well written by Mr. McCarthy. This puts the Arlen Specter debate in it's true light: Should we or should we not support a Judiciary Committee Chairman who promotes judicial activism and constitutional morphing?

[mike182d]

I'm sorry...in my last post I meant: "this is why abortion should NOT be legal."

[St. Johann Tetzel]

One idea of freedom is the ability to do whatever one wants, the other is the ability to do what is right.

Ahh, yes, the classic confusion between freedon and license.

This is why abortion should be legal. This is not about women having the freedom to do whatever they want, it is about the Constitution defending the freedom to do what is right and in NO circumstances can a free nation remain free when we allow the slaughter of our future generations.

Sorry, but this is just schizophrenic. Did you mean to say, This is why abortion should be illegal?

A right to life is inviolate. Women have no freedom or license to choose the murder of their child. Such a conclusion would negate every law in our land.

[St. Johann Tetzel]

Oh, OK, thanks!

[Syco]

You had me scratching my head.

[Fearless Flyers]

Ignoring the inalienable right to life and failing to secure the Blessing of liberty to our posterity, over 25,000 unborn babies were killed since election day by abortions.

[cpforlife.org]

Blackmun invented a right to abortion....Roe had nothing whatever to do with constitutional interpretation. The utter emptiness of the opinion has been demonstrated time and again, but that, too, is irrelevant. The decision and its later reaffirmations simply enforce the cultural prejudices of a particular class in American society, nothing more and nothing less. For that reason, Roe is impervious to logical or historical argument; it is what some people, including a majority of the Justices, want, and that is that. Roe should be overruled and the issue of abortion returned to the moral sense and the democratic choice of the American people. Abortions are killings by private persons. Science and rational demonstration prove that a human exists from the moment of conception. Scalia is quite right that the Constitution has nothing to say about abortion.

Robert H. Bork
Constitutional Persons: An Exchange on Abortion
Robert H. Bork is a Senior Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C.

.

PING

[HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity]

Right. The totalitarian judicial activism which Specter promotes and the social engineering of American society according to liberal secular humanism are actually quite at variance with the constitutional republicanism of our real form of government.

Liberals want the Supreme Court to legislate as the law of the land every idiotic liberal utopian fantasy they can think of. If they could get the Supreme Court to say that every American deserves a free hot tub they would do it.

[B4Ranch]

>>The second school of thought holds merely this: that judges are not supreme.<<

Our Constitution is!

[Askel5]

I had a little epiphany the other night.

Give some thought to the notion that "strict constitutionalist" is a codeword for those who utterly discount the self-evident truths of the Declaration without which our Constition may be interpreted to mean just about anything.

[ex-snook]

thanks for ping.

Roe will be dead as soon as the Democrats realize that they will never will another National election while it is in effect. The Dems will be glad to leave it to the States. [like Prohibition Amendment]

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Thanks !